Dishonesty

[CV75]

I'm not the one alleging "dishonesty", but I am arguing that we do a better job of understanding why people might allege that.

 

As to Elder Oaks, my memory was somewhat faulty in that he didn't use the word "white wash", but here's the quote from the PBS documentary (emphasis mine):

 

Here's the link: http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_history/Church_response

The interview was primarily about how the Church’s historical personalities are presented to the public. The Brethren are definitely responsible for this, as Elder Oaks says, representing the people and its history “in context” and for deciding on what people “need to read.”

 

With regards to histories, he says he has felt “the problem” throughout his life, the problem being the criticism that members are sometimes surprised by new things they learn which they find odd, and that they should have been altered to such things before they learned it (somehow…).

 

He gets into the many elements of the issue, which is not as simple as the Church having made a mistake or having been dishonest. He speaks of various means of reporting history, timing, purpose, preparation, constraints, balancing members’ needs and expectations, commonality, opportunity, individual initiative, neglect or misrepresentation of correct and available information that has in fact been provided by the Church, and improvement in how the Church puts out historical information, conveying far more regard for his fellow beings than the indiscriminate exploitation that has gone on with the Internet (for example).

 

Most importantly I think, he doesn’t speak of problems as stumbling blocks and errors, but as challenges to be managed. I like that he said, “we will never satisfy every complaint along that line and probably shouldn’t.”

 

With regards to the portion you bolded, he added, "but I believe that there is purpose in all these things..." I think "lagging behind the times" has to be taken in context of the many other elements he mentioned along with it. These other elements form a picture that, no matter how big, must undermine any of God's children.

[CV75]

It's appropriate to teach a narrative that is incorrect if it supports the "scriptural narrative"?

I don't understand what you mean, in context of my post which you responded to -- could you be more specific?

[rockpond]

I don't understand what you mean, in context of my post which you responded to -- could you be more specific?

 

This quote, from you:  "For example, the Book of Mormon came “forth by the gift and power of God” (Book of Mormon title page), and, “God had prepared [the Urim and Thummim) for the purpose of translating the book” (JS-H 1:35; D&C 10:1). The use of other stones are not mentioned in LDS canon, and it is appropriate to teach the Gospel according to the scriptural narrative."

 

Sounds like you are suggesting that it is okay to teach that Joseph translated using the U&T because that's what the scripture tell us.

 

Even though that doesn't seem to be what actually happened.

[Teancum]

I'm hardly the most informed person on LDS history. I don't have a testimony of Church history. However I do know enough for my own purposes. If I knew these things there is no excuse for others not to know.

 

Why are you the benchmark for everyone else?

[ttribe]

The interview was primarily about how the Church’s historical personalities are presented to the public. The Brethren are definitely responsible for this, as Elder Oaks says, representing the people and its history “in context” and for deciding on what people “need to read.”

 

With regards to histories, he says he has felt “the problem” throughout his life, the problem being the criticism that members are sometimes surprised by new things they learn which they find odd, and that they should have been altered to such things before they learned it (somehow…).

 

He gets into the many elements of the issue, which is not as simple as the Church having made a mistake or having been dishonest. He speaks of various means of reporting history, timing, purpose, preparation, constraints, balancing members’ needs and expectations, commonality, opportunity, individual initiative, neglect or misrepresentation of correct and available information that has in fact been provided by the Church, and improvement in how the Church puts out historical information, conveying far more regard for his fellow beings than the indiscriminate exploitation that has gone on with the Internet (for example).

 

Most importantly I think, he doesn’t speak of problems as stumbling blocks and errors, but as challenges to be managed. I like that he said, “we will never satisfy every complaint along that line and probably shouldn’t.”

 

With regards to the portion you bolded, he added, "but I believe that there is purpose in all these things..." I think "lagging behind the times" has to be taken in context of the many other elements he mentioned along with it. These other elements form a picture that, no matter how big, must undermine any of God's children.

 

It seems to me you are over-nuancing the quote a bit...and I'm not even sure why.  He acknowledges the inherent tension, yes, but states that things are changing to be more forthright.  Why is it a problem for me (and others) to read it that way?

Edited August 11, 2015 by ttribe

[Teancum]

As convert in the late 1980s with no LDS relatives somehow I had access to the stone in hat theory through an institute manual in 1991, and yet born in the covenant 8 generations Mormons were shocked into disbelief because of this and other history that was hidden!

 

The same people who blame the church for hiding history, don't balance this with the examples of church published information in their arguments, or pass them off as exceptions that no one would reasonably find (needle in a haystack, etc.).

 

Joseph Smith's history and the history of the church in general is ancillary to the purpose of Sunday School and missionary work, not the central purpose of Sunday School and other widely published church materials.  For those who wanted detailed history institute and other published books were available.

 

Some of these details were impossible to sort between faithful and critics until the Joseph Smith Papers and other documents were released, shedding additional light on the details.  To this day we still don't know the intimate details of many historical events.  Yet there are plenty of people who will take the most favorable, or least favorable interpretation of incomplete information to justify their own orientation towards the Gospel and church.

 

 

I have known for years JS had a seer stone. I have also known that he may have used it for part of the translation. I did not know it seems likely he used it for almost all the translation with his head buried in a hat.

 

I also, perhaps due to my own ineptness, did not connect the fact that this same stone was used by Smith to try unsuccessfully to find hidden treasure.  The fact that it was used in such a way and later used to allegedly receive revelation and translate a book that the record of was not even present for it for me a bit disconcerting.

 

But so what if I knew, you knew or others knew.   Many did not know.  And the Church in its official narrative and presentation portrayed it much differently.  And a one or two articles in its official publication is hardly fill disclosure.

 

And with all due respect to those who state that in the 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s this was all just accessible to those willing to work at it and thus it is the lazy members fault, well your argument is nonsensical.  Most members did not have access to the material you think was so accessible.  And to expect say a 16 to 19 year old getting ready for a mission to be well versed in the nuances of Church history when it was not readily available is really rather ludicrous.  And I will tell you that for me personally I knew of many of the controversial issues before my mission, during my mission and after and I served from 1979-1981.   And I defended them for a long long time, maybe to preserve my own testimony.

 

I stopped doing that when at least for me I realized the apologetics for so many things were just so bad that I could not argue them with integrity any longer.

[Teancum]

I find the contrast of positions on these boards to be the most fascinating part of all this...

 

There are those in your camp who say:  look, it's been published and out there all along.

 

And then there are those, like Robert F Smith (a couple pages back) who claim that the Brethren weren't hiding anything because they likely didn't know.  History was unclear.

 

And then we have Doctrines of Salvation (Joseph Fielding Smith, compiled/edited by Bruce R McConkie) which Deseret Book describes today as "an authoritative work, written by the most outstanding scholar of the gospel in the Church containing a wealth of explanations about a vast array of gospel topics" that discounts the use of a seer stone in translating the Book of Mormon, highlighting how it seemingly contradicts the Book of Mormon itself.

 

I'm not sure how to reconcile the statements that members are lazy for not knowing while the Brethren are justified for telling a different narrative and keeping the seer stone hidden away because we didn't know the real history.  Until now.

 

 

Bravo!

[HappyJackWagon]

Just for everyone keeping score. The only examples of the church lying, or being dishonest seems to be limited to some of the artists and illustrators of the church.

The victims are the poor illiterate in the church who have been mislead to believe that Joseph looked through two rocks instead when some witnesses said that at times he only looked at one.

I've come to the conclusion that you are being deliberately obtuse. I can't explain your comments any other way.

 

The proof of dishonesty is EVERY single lesson manual that taught about Joseph translating with the urim and thummim which had been included in the box with Laban's sword and the Golden plates.

 

The proof of dishonesty is EVERY work of art and EVERY video the church commissioned to depict the translation of the BoM.

 

The proof of dishonesty is in EVERY missionary discussion taught which discussed the wrong story of translation and in EVERY lesson taught in church where the teacher based the lesson on the approved church curriculum.

 

DANZO- Did you teach the rock/hat method of translation despite knowing it was a false narrative? If so, WHY?

 

We are asked in Temple Recommend interviews if we "have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these, the latter days." The problem is, the narrative of "the restoration of the gospel, in these the latter days" continues changing, one detail at a time.

[CV75]

This quote, from you:  "For example, the Book of Mormon came “forth by the gift and power of God” (Book of Mormon title page), and, “God had prepared [the Urim and Thummim) for the purpose of translating the book” (JS-H 1:35; D&C 10:1). The use of other stones are not mentioned in LDS canon, and it is appropriate to teach the Gospel according to the scriptural narrative."

 

Sounds like you are suggesting that it is okay to teach that Joseph translated using the U&T because that's what the scripture tell us.

 

Even though that doesn't seem to be what actually happened.

That quote, from me, was part of a larger quote comparing teaching by way of testimony and teaching by way of explanation. But yes, consistent with scripture, Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, and used the Urim and Thummim for the purpose of doing so, and it is okay to both testify of and explain the translation of the Book of Mormon in those terms.

 

Are you teaching that he didn’t translate the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, and didn’t use the Urim and Thummim to translate it, and that this position is founded in scripture?

[rockpond]

That quote, from me, was part of a larger quote comparing teaching by way of testimony and teaching by way of explanation. But yes, consistent with scripture, Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, and used the Urim and Thummim for the purpose of doing so, and it is okay to both testify of and explain the translation of the Book of Mormon in those terms.

 

Are you teaching that he didn’t translate the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, and didn’t use the Urim and Thummim to translate it, and that this position is founded in scripture?

 

I do believe that Joseph brought forth the Book of Mormon through the gift and power of God.

 

The Church is teaching that he used a seer stone and the historical record seems to indicate that he used it (and not the U&T after the 116 pages were lost).

 

So, yeah, it seems incorrect to teach otherwise.

[CV75]

It seems to me you are over-nuancing the quote a bit...and I'm not even sure why.  He acknowledges the inherent tension, yes, but states that things are changing to be more forthright.  Why is it a problem for me (and others) to read it that way?

I have the advantage of reading and paraphrasing the article shortly before posting (thank you for the link), rather than just misremembering it as a nuanced confession of whitewashing. To me, he says much more than what you've distilled from it and which sheds light on the process of Church's efforts in publishing its history and historical materials and possessions, and teaching and explaining them in the best fashion. That is why I think, now that you asked, there is a problem for you (for you) to read it that way--but that isn't an issue for me and is not my reason for discussing this.

[ttribe]

I have the advantage of reading and paraphrasing the article shortly before posting (thank you for the link), rather than just misremembering it as a nuanced confession of whitewashing. To me, he says much more than what you've distilled from it and which sheds light on the process of Church's efforts in publishing its history and historical materials and possessions, and teaching and explaining them in the best fashion. That is why I think, now that you asked, there is a problem for you (for you) to read it that way--but that isn't an issue for me and is not my reason for discussing this.

 

Okay, but did he not say that the Church is moving from one era that didn't include as much disclosure to one that does?

[KevinG]

I thought that the current accounts we have now tell us that Joseph saw the words on the stone, read them aloud to the scribe, and waited for them to be repeated back to him at which time the words would disappear from the stone and the next line would appear.

 

Correct but those accounts are what others saw Joseph do...  someone watching me give a blessing might observe and think I received it word for word, when in reality I was interpreting images and promptings.  I've heard others describe the process like reading from a text.  To be very truthful the process is not always the same for me.  There have been times when I understood exact phrases to say, and other where it was more like "you know what to say already- just do it". 

 

For an eyewitness the internal process is not visible or obvious.  Unless Joseph himself said that he translated verbatim each word from the stone than I'm not sure that is the correct assumption for all of the translation process.

 

I hope that is less muddy.

[williamsmith]

I am very pleased the church is being more transparent regarding issues of our past by releasing the essay on BoM translation as well as the information about the seer stone. But I have a question I really need answered.

 

WHY did the church purposely promulgate a false narrative about the BoM translation?

It's a simple question.

 

It seems clear the church has been aware for quite some time that the Hat/stone method was the primary method of translation. We have a smattering of Ensign articles over the last 40 years proving church leadership was aware, yet they continued teaching the "traditional" narrative in Sunday School, Missionary discussions, CES curriculum, and certainly in the art they approved and often commissioned. WHY would they take that approach? Why?

 

When I consider this issue along with the well documented deceptions regarding the practice of polygamy I have to wonder how many more lies have been told and how I can trust the church to be honest.

 

I want this to be a very focused discussion about WHY the church leadership would purposely deceive. Please help me understand WHY. Thanks.

 

What's "False" about it?

 

1. The Plates existed, Joseph Received Revelation Translating the BOM.

 

2. Tell me, when you're an ARTIST, what would be the most clean way to show Joseph, and show the Plates, and to imply Translating?

Exactly how the Church has shown it all these years.

 

3. The Translation did in fact occur how the Church has shown it.

It was 1 of 6 known "means" the Translation occured. (note also that some of the method also had the plates there)

- Stone in Hat

- Urim Thummim (which are stones formed as a type of spectacles)

- Urim Thummim in hat

- Plates

- No Plates

- No Plates, Stones, or Hats

 

Conclusion:  Would recommend you stop listening to anti-mormons as being truth tellers, who strain at a nat while swalling the camel.

[Danzo]

 

DANZO- Did you teach the rock/hat method of translation despite knowing it was a false narrative? If so, WHY?

 

 

 

Didn't teach the translation method in my mission, did you?  would it have mattered if it was one rock or two?

[Danzo]

I've come to the conclusion that you are being deliberately obtuse. I can't explain your comments any other way.

 

The proof of dishonesty is EVERY single lesson manual that taught about Joseph translating with the urim and thummim which had been included in the box with Laban's sword and the Golden plates.

 

The proof of dishonesty is EVERY work of art and EVERY video the church commissioned to depict the translation of the BoM.

 

The proof of dishonesty is in EVERY missionary discussion taught which discussed the wrong story of translation and in EVERY lesson taught in church where the teacher based the lesson on the approved church curriculum.

 

 

show me the dishonesty.

 

Show me.

      1.   What they published.

      2.   That was false.

      3.   They knew was false.

      4.   With the purpose to deceive.

 

Remember all historical accounts must, by necessity condense, and therefore omit things.

 

All that has been shown, on this thread are artists renditions that show many things (positions of people, dress, etc) that are unknowable (maybe even wrong).

 

All you are complaining is that you don't see the account that you want to see, you don't even know if the hat was used every time (how could you?).

 

We all know, and have been taught, that Joseph smith used rocks to translate.

 

The only problem you seem to have is  which rocks and how many were used at what time they were used.  

 

You claim the church deceived you about the exact nature of rocks.

 

what is the point? is it any more strange to use one rock instead of two? to use a hat instead of a curtain?

 

You claim this huge conspiracy about the rocks, where I just see someone who has lost their faith and needs someone to blame.  (If they only had told me the truth about all of the possible combination of rock used, i would have kept my faith)

Edited August 11, 2015 by Danzo

[HappyJackWagon]

Didn't teach the translation method in my mission, did you?  would it have mattered if it was one rock or two?

Of course I did when talking about the larger story of the restoration and the miraculous visions and translation of the BoM. I also showed the approved artwork. What did you do? Hand them the BoM and say "this is important" with no background or narrative about where it came from?

 

So you knew about it on your mission but didn't teach it. Did you teach the rock/hat during other church lessons you've taught over the years? I'm not talking about a lesson centered on the seer stone, but one talking about the coming forth of the book of mormon. I find it hard to believe that someone who knows that information wouldn't share it during those types of lessons UNLESS they felt there was something wrong with that story.

[HappyJackWagon]

show me the dishonesty.

 

Show me.

      1.   What they published.

      2.   That was false.

      3.   They knew was false.

      4.   With the purpose to deceive.

 

Remember all historical accounts must, by necessity condense, and therefore omit things.

That's a ridiculous request. I would have to catalog every lesson manual and every gospel art kit for the past 100 years.

 

I've already explained the institutional dishonesty and you haven't refuted it. I don't blame you because I don't feel it's possible to do, but I you are wrong in pretending like it didn't happen.

Edited August 11, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[bjw]

I have known for years JS had a seer stone. I have also known that he may have used it for part of the translation. I did not know it seems likely he used it for almost all the translation with his head buried in a hat.

I also, perhaps due to my own ineptness, did not connect the fact that this same stone was used by Smith to try unsuccessfully to find hidden treasure. The fact that it was used in such a way and later used to allegedly receive revelation and translate a book that the record of was not even present for it for me a bit disconcerting

This is the most troublesome part of it Imho. I don't think the exact vehicle of translation is important, as far as I'm concerned he could have read tea leaves, God can speak through any vehicle. The problem is that the stone was used on these treasure hunting excursions, some of which were unsuccessful due to the treasure slipping through the ground, similar to Mormon ch. 1 and also described in Helaman and Ether. This looks suspiciously like they didn't want the connection made between the BoM and the stone because of the treasure operations.

I think the church could still salvage this by showing the treasure hunts as God preparing Joseph to be a prophet, and explaining the slipping of the treasure as an example of the curse on the land mentioned in the BoM. I think ignoring these things is the last thing they should do. I'm not sure if apologizing for the past depictions would be a good idea, but they should definitely say only the correct version of the story should be taught from now on.

Edited August 11, 2015 by bjw

[williamsmith]

That's a ridiculous request. I would have to catalog every lesson manual and every gospel art kit for the past 100 years.

 

I've already explained the institutional dishonesty and you haven't refuted it. I don't blame you because I don't feel it's possible to do, but I you are wrong in pretending like it didn't happen.

 

The only "dishonesty" is from people like you.  See my post above.

How the Church shows the translation IS one of the known methods, from all known accounts, the translation occured.

Thus, that makes the anti-mormon claim that it was ONLY by "rock in hat" a total falsehood.

 

Further, the Church did what it did for Artistic reasons to best show "translating" of the plates with Joseph and the Plates.

That's not "deception", that's being practical.  You need to demonstrate the intention of being deceptive, rather than something else actually reasonable like I've explained.

Edited August 11, 2015 by williamsmith

[HappyJackWagon]

This is the most troublesome part of it Imho. I don't think the exact vehicle of translation is important, as far as I'm concerned he could have read tea leaves, God can speak through any vehicle. The problem is that the stone was used on these treasure hunting excursions, some of which were unsuccessful due to the treasure slipping through the ground, similar to Moroni ch. 1 and also described in Helaman and Ether. This looks suspiciously like they didn't want the connection made between the BoM and the stone because of the treasure operations.

I think the church could still salvage this by showing the treasure hunts as God preparing Joseph to be a prophet, and explaining the slipping of the treasure as an example of the curse on the land mentioned in the BoM. I think ignoring these things is the last thing they should do. I'm not sure if apologizing for the past depictions would be a good idea, but they should definitely say only the correct version of the story should be taught from now on.

Good thoughts, BJW.

 

Like you say, the church can show the magical world view as preparatory to JS's prophetic role. Bushman does this. This larger, more troubling issue is the systematic, institutional dishonesty which persists to this day. It's easier to admit faults and funny business in our distant past but when it is current during our lifetimes it's harder to accept.

[Danzo]

Of course I did when talking about the larger story of the restoration and the miraculous visions and translation of the BoM. I also showed the approved artwork. What did you do? Hand them the BoM and say "this is important" with no background or narrative about where it came from?

 

So you knew about it on your mission but didn't teach it. Did you teach the rock/hat during other church lessons you've taught over the years? I'm not talking about a lesson centered on the seer stone, but one talking about the coming forth of the book of mormon. I find it hard to believe that someone who knows that information wouldn't share it during those types of lessons UNLESS they felt there was something wrong with that story.

On my mission I used the Joseph smith history, a first person account that should have some credibility.

The exact technique didn't come up.  It usually wasn't important.

[Danzo]

That's a ridiculous request. I would have to catalog every lesson manual and every gospel art kit for the past 100 years.

 

I've already explained the institutional dishonesty and you haven't refuted it. I don't blame you because I don't feel it's possible to do, but I you are wrong in pretending like it didn't happen.

 

Those making accusations of dishonesty usually have the burden of proof.

[Danzo]

This is the most troublesome part of it Imho. I don't think the exact vehicle of translation is important, as far as I'm concerned he could have read tea leaves, God can speak through any vehicle. The problem is that the stone was used on these treasure hunting excursions, some of which were unsuccessful due to the treasure slipping through the ground, similar to Moroni ch. 1 and also described in Helaman and Ether. This looks suspiciously like they didn't want the connection made between the BoM and the stone because of the treasure operations.

I think the church could still salvage this by showing the treasure hunts as God preparing Joseph to be a prophet, and explaining the slipping of the treasure as an example of the curse on the land mentioned in the BoM. I think ignoring these things is the last thing they should do. I'm not sure if apologizing for the past depictions would be a good idea, but they should definitely say only the correct version of the story should be taught from now on.

 

The treasure hunting episode is well hidden, in Joseph Smith history where they knew no one would read it.

[bjw]

Sorry, I corrected my last post for accuracy, I meant Mormon, not Moroni.